ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence and dismissed the appeal. The criminal appeal was preferred against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pakur in P.C.R. Case No. 197 of 2001/T.R. No. 131 of 2012 whereby the petitioner was convicted for committing the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- only and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the Complainant. The Complaint in the present case was filed on 24.08.2001 and the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and has been punished for rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner was convicted in the year 2012 and against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, an appeal was filed, but was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel submitted that there was lack of territorial jurisdiction as no incident in connection with the offence had taken place at Pakur. He also submitted that the Complaint Petition was not exhibited or proved and there is no cogent proof of demand of dowry and cruelty by the present petitioner. He submitted that only two witnesses were examined before the learned trial court. CW-1 is the elder sister of the Complainant and CW-2 is the Complainant herself and there is no independent witness to the occurrence. There is no cogent evidence on the demand of dowry and there is no specific allegation of demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge was framed only against the present petitioner, although in the complaint petition all the family members were made accused and there was no specific allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has remained in jail custody for a period from 17.01.2014 to 14.02.2014 during the pendency of the present criminal revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that cognizance of the offence in the case was taken against all the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition except sister-in-law and he reiterated that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner has faced the criminal case at least from 11.02.2006 and the charge was framed only on 04.01.2010 and this aspect of the matter may be considered and the sentence may be modified.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent finding of facts by both the learned courts below and the petitioner and his parents were declared absconder by the learned trial court on 02.09.2005. On 11.02.2006, the petitioner was remanded in this case and consequently, on 04.01.2010 the charge was framed against the present petitioner only.

6. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the point regarding territorial jurisdiction has been considered by the learned lower appellate court in the impugned judgment in Para-15 and all the points which were raised before the learned courts below have been considered an